Special CEC-DR President Message

When I received my copy of the CEC-DR Fall newsletter earlier this month, I re-read the “President’s Message” and two things struck me: (1) it seemed like I wrote that message an eon ago (though it was just September), and (2) it was rather introspective—about looking inward to refocus on what’s “special” about our work and to renew our energy for a new academic year. Now, just a couple of months later, it seems like we’re in a very different time—an uncertain time, which necessitates a look outward as we question what’s to come.

A major question on many of our minds is this: What’s going to happen to special education research funding? Right now the answer is not at all clear, but in anticipation of the worst, we are frantically writing letters pleading with our Congress people to maintain or increase NCSER funding levels, to prioritize personnel preparation funding that supports many of our doctoral students, among other concerns. We are pondering the long-term impacts that diminished funding might have on our research programs and, ultimately, on education in this country.

Now, more than ever, it is vital that we advocate for research aimed at improving the lives of children and youth at risk or identified with disabilities. In the broader context of special education, we must also advocate for IDEA itself, which will likely face scrutiny and proposals for changes that could weaken rights, protections, and federal support that currently exist for children with disabilities. We need to keep writing letters and keep calling our Senators and Representatives. Such actions have made an important difference in the past, and they MUST make a difference now.

I can’t help but feel that it is not just funding and policy at stake: It is the very nature of our
work. Much of the knowledge base in special education is derived from science: It is the
 
translation of basic research to application, it is systematic observation and hypothesis testing, and it is careful analysis and interpretation of data. There are quantitative and qualitative elements that help us answer complex questions--not only about what works, but for whom and in what contexts. All of it is guided by a process of systematic inquiry to ensure robust findings that have the most enduring impact possible.

I have always believed that such a scientific approach matters—that it is necessary for answering questions about learning and behavior and how best to meet the needs of exceptional children and youth. Yet, these days, a pessimist might say that science doesn’t matter—that facts seem to be optional, that misconceptions abound and are nearly impossible to dispel, that data can be manipulated to suit specific agendas, that shocking tweets get more attention than thoughtful discussion. These aren’t new issues, but they seem magnified of late.

So what do we do? We need to make science matter. Now, more than ever, we should seize every opportunity to explain to politicians what the scientific method is and why it’s important. As we implore Congress to support special education research, we need to show why a scientific endeavor is essential to making progress in the field. How do we do this? Of course, we keep showing our data as evidence of the significant impacts that research can make. But we also need to keep telling stories—perhaps even louder and clearer--about the schools, teachers, and families with whom we work, about the individuals our work is intended to benefit, and about how research is essential to making a lasting difference. You can share your stories here: https://sites.google.com/a/uncg.edu/cec-dr-research-stories/. CEC-DR will, in turn, share these stories far and wide in our advocacy efforts.

All of this calls up a lesson from Professor Stanley Deno, a very dear mentor and friend to many of us, who passed away this fall. Stan used to visit my doctoral seminar every year at the University of Minnesota, and he’d always give my students (and me) the following advice: We should focus our work on cultural imperatives—those fundamental issues and problems in schools that we absolutely must address in order to truly make a difference with our work. Cultural imperatives might include mental health, safety in schools, literacy and math proficiency --to name but a few.

I wonder, is a scientific evidence base that guides educational practice a cultural imperative? I would argue that it should be. As members of CEC-DR, let’s continue to work together to make it so.

Here are some resources (thanks to UMN’s CEHD Office of Research and Policy for sharing):

• Elections 2016: Implications for Research, Higher Education and Academic Medicine - This report from federal relations firm Lewis-Burke outlines what we do know about Trump's likely positions, as well as the election's effects on various Congressional committees.
• After the Election: What Now for Science Funding and Policy? - The American Association for the Advancement of Science's (AAAS) hour-long webinar, first aired November 14, is available for on-demand playback.